[Bug 664963] Rename Request: libmcs - Configuration file abstraction library
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed Jan 19 13:49:45 UTC 2011
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=664963
Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org |martin.gieseking at uos.de
Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Martin Gieseking <martin.gieseking at uos.de> 2011-01-19 08:49:44 EST ---
The package looks fine. Especially, the Obsoletes/Provides fields are set
properly. As I couldn't find any blockers, we can directly finish here. :)
Adding the Doxygen docs would be a helpful improvement, and if upstream could
provide manpages for the utils, this would also be appreciated of course.
$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-14-i386/result/*.rpm
libmcs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userland -> user land,
user-land, Sutherland
libmcs.i686: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> utile, utilizes,
utilize
libmcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US userland -> user land,
user-land, Sutherland
libmcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> utile, utilizes,
utilize
libmcs.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mcs -> ms, cs, mics
libmcs.src:82: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
libmcs.src:83: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
libmcs.src:84: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
libmcs.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %config
libmcs.src:95: W: macro-in-comment %{_sysconfdir}
libmcs-devel.i686: W: no-documentation
libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-documentation
libmcs-utils.i686: W: devel-file-in-non-devel-package /usr/bin/mcs-walk-config
libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-query-backends
libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-setconfval
libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-info
libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-getconfval
libmcs-utils.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary mcs-walk-config
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 18 warnings.
All above warnings can be ignored:
- spellling errors are false positive
- warnings about macros in comments are expected and harmless
- devel-file-in-non-devel-package is false positive
- no manpages present in source archive
---------------------------------
key:
[+] OK
[.] OK, not applicable
[X] needs work
---------------------------------
[+] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}.
[+] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[+] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license.
- BSD (3-clause variant)
[+] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[+] MUST: When renaming an existing package, the Provides field must be
properly set: Provides: oldpackagename = $provEVR
- Provides properly set for all (sub)packages
[+] MUST: When renaming an existing package, the Obsoletes field must be
properly set: Obsoletes: oldpackagename < $obsEVR
- Obsoletes properly set for all (sub)packages
[+] MUST: The file containing the text of the license(s) for the package must
be included in %doc.
[+] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
[+] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[+] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source.
$ md5sum libmcs-0.7.2.tbz2*
9fc91a8e860a0ab99316824aebb1d40a libmcs-0.7.2.tbz2
9fc91a8e860a0ab99316824aebb1d40a libmcs-0.7.2.tbz2.1
[+] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
koji scratch build (f15):
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2731019
[.] MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work ...
[+] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
[.] MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly.
[+] MUST: Packages storing shared library files (not just symlinks) must call
ldconfig in %post and %postun.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[.] MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, ...
[+] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates.
[+] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in %files.
[+] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly.
[+] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros.
[+] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
[.] MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
[+] MUST: Files in %doc must not affect the runtime of the application.
[+] MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
[.] MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[+] MUST: .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel package.
[+] MUST: devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned
dependency.
[+] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.
[.] MUST: Packages containing GUI applications ...
[+] MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
[+] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[.] SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[+] SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
[+] SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described.
[+] SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane.
[+] SHOULD: subpackages other than devel should require the base package using
a fully versioned dependency.
[+] SHOULD: pkgconfig(.pc) files should be placed in a -devel pkg.
[.] SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin ...
[X] SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts.
- it would be nice if upstream could add manpages for the utilities
----------------
Package APPROVED
----------------
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list